Conservatives Freak Out Over New Udall Ad

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall's campaign is out with another ad slamming opponent Cory Gardner for his longstanding support for banning all abortions even in cases of rape or incest–and also for Gardner's renounced backing of the Personhood abortion bans in Colorado, which could have banned certain forms of so-called "abortifacient" birth control in addition to banning all abortions. Udall's latest ad on this subject could be the hardest-hitting yet, and that has seriously upset conservatives allied with Gardner. The religious Life Newsreports:

Pro-abortion Colorado Sen. Mark Udall has released a campaign ad trashing pro-life Congressman Cory Gardner, who is challenging the abortion advocate in one of the hottest Senate races in the country.

Gardner, a pro-life Congressman from Colorado, hopes to help pro-life advocates gain control of the Senate from Reid and to put it back in pro-life hands. Gardner is a longtime pro-life advocate who maintains a 100% pro-life voting record in the House…

Udall's new "Backwards" TV ad against opponent Cory Gardner, a Republican congressman, features a woman holding a girl that looks about five or six years old while discussing abortion.

After the ad's narrator criticizes Gardner's "history supporting harsh anti-abortion laws," the mother, with the girl in her lap, says: "I want my daughter to have the same choices I do."

In an ad released today attacking his opponent, Republican Congressman Cory Gardner, Udall claims Gardner wants to "ban common forms of birth control." This statement is completely false.

First, Supreme Court precedent set through Griswold v. Connecticut makes banning birth control pretty much impossible (you can read more about this in my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women). Second, Gardner actually supports making many pill forms of birth control and contraception over-the-counter. An over-the-counter position provides women with more access to birth control, not less and is very far from a "ban" on anything.

Remember, the best outrage always includes a book plug. Ms. Pavlich is right that a Supreme Court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, upheld women's rights to contraception–much like Roe v. Wade upheld a women's right to abortion. But it occurs to us that comparison doesn't help Pavlich's argument much, since conservatives want Roe v. Wade thrown out. We assume Pavlich never spoke to the organizing proponents of the Personhood abortion bans in Colorado to find out that they very much did intend to ban "abortifacient" birth control. This would amount to a challenge to the Supreme Court's Griswold v. Connecticut decision, but that's not a stretch when you realize that Personhood is meant to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Gardner's disavowal of support for Colorado's Personhood initiative rests on the dubious claim that he "didn't know" Personhood could have these secondary effects on access to birth control. It's hard to call this a fictional consequence when Gardner himself admitted to it. As we've discussed in detail, this has been a well-known consequence of Personhood ever since 2008. Again, the proponents of Personhood knew this, and made no attempt to conceal their desire to ban "abortifacient" birth control at the time.

A ban on abortifacient birth control is also a potential consequence of the federal Life at Conception Act that Gardner remains a cosponsor of to this very day, despite unsupported claims otherwise from Gardner's campaign. As for Gardner's latest proposal for over-the-counter birth control pills? It was made under duress as a response to this crisis situation–as an attack on Obamacare, and with no real consideration for what it would mean as a substitute to the zero-copay birth control already available through Obamacare. For example, who's going to install an intrauterine device (IUD) over the counter?

So what are we left with with all of these facts in view? Well, Udall has another campaign ad out attacking Gardner on one of his gravest vulnerabilities–longstanding support for banning abortion, as well as the Personhood bans that could go even farther. The central offense in Udall's ad is a mother and her daughter, with the mother saying she wants her daughter to have "the same choices" she did. The presence of the young daughter in this ad especially outrages conservatives, who would rather think that Democrats want all children aborted, or that all young Democratic girls are taught loose morals via birth control and easy abortions–or whatever the problem is here.

But the outrage seems to be meant to conceal something Gardner's campaign doesn't want to discuss honestly.

24 Community Comments,
Facebook Comments

Either Katie Pavlich has no idea what Bob Enyart is all about, or she is a bigger liar than anyone ever imagined. Yes, Katie, Personhoodies want to ban birth control. They are on your side. Deal with it, but don't deny it.

I take issue with the title of this piece. I'm a conservative and I'm not freaking out over this ad. Fortunately, the piece does focus on the key Supreme Court decision; which is Griswold, not Roe. Personhood USA is not the only entity opposing birth control; throw in the American Life League, Americans United for Life, hierarchy of the Catholic Church, among others. I've yet to see how these groups feel about the availability of condoms at truck stop mens' rooms however.

Well pro-choice elected pols certainly aren't in the majority among Republicans. You can hardly find any. Wherever you find state legislatures in Republican hands the top priorities always seem to be passing draconian controls on the right to choose, on women's access to healthcare and on the ability to vote. You also don't hear them denouncing federal personhood which certainly could ban some forms of birth control once a fertilized egg is granted the same legal status as a human being who has actually been born. Especially since they are so fond of labeling so many methods, most often including the pill, as abortifacient.

The fact that Personhood USA isn't the only group pushing to take away a access to affordable family planning and healthcare just goes to show how important it is to oppose them all. A vote for any Republican is a vote for a possible Republican legislative majority or executive and the number of those who are Republican Majority for Choice types is beyond negligible.

Mr. Gardner has no one to blame but himself that his credibility has evaporated.

Congressman Gardner has tried to play both ends against the middle. He's for the federal Personhood amendment but against the Colorado Personhood amendment. Its too late now, but from the beginning of his campaign, he should have admitted he supports the Personhood amendment, but that he realizes the voters in Colorado have overwhelming rejected it (twice) and therefore, if elected, he wouldn't pursue passage of it or other anit-choice legislation. Of course, even if he had followed that path he still wouldn't have a credibility because in those circumstances in 2010, he told the Tea Party he would do everything in his power to pass anti-abortion legislation and then two weeks later told the editorial board of the Ft. Collins Coloradan that he would not sponsor, co-sponsor or support anti-choice legislation if elected to the U.S. House. At that moment, the editor of the Coloradan, who had attend the Tea Party meeting where Mr. Gardner promised to sponsor and pass anti-choice legislation, reminded him of that fact and Mr. Gardner responded by saying that he could not remember what he'd said at that Tea Party meeting. Two weeks after being sworn-in as a congressman in January 2011, he began voting for and sponsoring anti-choice legislation. So even if he chose the path suggested above, he still doesn't have any credibility because he was double dealing different groups and newspaper editorial boards four years ago on the abortion issue.

His credibility has evaporated because he made contradictory statements (easily proven) and therefore the voters can't trust him on a key social issue, especially women. In fact, with his behavior and statements its impossible for anyone, conservative. moderate, or liberal; Republican or Democrat, to believe anything he says. He has undermined his credibility not only on the issue of women's choice but on any other issue. None of us can trust that he means what he says on any issue.

it is far too late for him to renounce fed amendment without exacerbating the damage he has already done to his base. It would be a giant firestorm that would be hugely entertaining and cost him any shot at election.

It is important to note that the mother holding a young child is not talking about "abortion" per se. She is only saying that she wants her daughter to have the same "choices' she did. People with young children, regardless of their position on abortion, know that abortion is not something discussed with the very young, particularly if one is preparing a young child for a new sibling and is explaining elementary facts abour pregancy and why Mommy's tummy is big, etc. etc. etc.

I would much prefer to see ads that continually ask Gardner to answer the question "Will you vote for the federal "Life Begins at Conception Act" that he has sponsored. Such an ad should include Gardner's telephone number and the request to call Gardne and ask him. It might also be good to record responses from his office, if that were to be legal. Because the only real issue about the so-call personhood bill is would he vote for it. If he says "yes" then the ads can be straighforwardabout the impact of such legislation instead of convoluted about what he said and when did he say it and what does that all mean. If he refuses to answer, then that do can be publicized. If he says "no", the of course he can righly be accused of being hypocritical.

C.H.B. has a very real point that many in the Democratic party may not appreciate. Regardless of their actual practice, sixty million or so catholics are very familiar with all the arguments against contraceptives, the morning after pill, and life from the moment of conception forward……so what some of you think as "backward" is mainstream catholic doctrine…..even tho, it is not practiced by most.

Republican 36: Mr. Gardner has no one to blame but himself……very true. I wrote on another thread that it is usually the incumbents (for CO this year, specifically governor and senator) who have baggage in that they have to run on their records. In these two cases, it's the challengers who have the baggage.

dwyer: it's important to note…….. studies I've seen indicate that at least 80% of Catholic women of child-bearing age; maybe more; use contraception in direct violations of the directives from the patriarchal bishops.

Blue cat: well, pro-choice elected pols……. Sad, but true. The Republican party has allowed itself to be hi-jacked by the religious right.

The biggest short-coming of the Personhood movement is that it's basically an anti-sex movement; not a conservative movement. The only way to determine if a woman of child-bearing age has a fertilized egg, after sex, is to do a surgical procedure to examine the uterus with a microscope. The anti-sex crowd takes the easy way out by trying to ban everything.

Of course catholic women use birth control. People who oppose abortion use birth control. However, my point was that the arguments against contraception are very familiar to catholics because of the religious doctrine to which catholics are exposed. Catholics are conflicted…..practice against "belief"…..so I do not think it wise to frame arguments that attack catholic doctrine…that is why I emphasize questioning Gardner about how he would VOTE, not what he believes….even tho he is not catholic…..Beauprez is.

Democrats, once again, are simply not knowledgable about current Republican strategy. Advocating for OTC Birth Control is not a last ditch effort by Gardner – it was a strategy anounced last year by Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisana. It is part of the strategy to blunt the so-called war on women: Here is one article disagreeing with Jindal..but confirming the idea of OTC. Note: since this was written, PLAN B is availabe to minors; also the FDA has warned that PLAN B does not work for females weighing over 165 lbs.

I won't argue sematics with you, Cmd. My point was that the idea of OTC birth control is part of a Republican stategy to prove that they are NOT against birth control.

There is another prominent Republican, Rand Paul, who is "changing" his position by restating it. Two examples that were highlighted on MSNBC last night. Rand Paul once called for the elimination of all foreign aid including

the aid to Isreal. Now, he is claiming that he never said that; he says that he NEVER introduced norr supported LEGISLATION to eliminate all foreign aid, including that to Isreal. Therefore, it is not fair to say that he doesn't support aid to Isreal. The second example involves the public accommodation act, based on the 14th amendment's equal protection of the law and is the absolute foundation of the civil right act. Rand Paul claims loud and clear that no STATE should ever have the right to discriminate. He emphasizes STATE. But, he has said in the past that he believe that private property owners should have the right to discriminate……like Woolworth and Hobby Lobby and any other private enterprise. I think that is the MAJOR threat to the 14th amendment. I wish the dems would be more alert to this and that who ever is calling the shots on the local dem campaigns was not totally fixacted on birth control and sex. I am afraid that "money from back east" has a template based on the 2010 election and is missing real issues.